Food Policy

Boycotting Big Meat Is Not the Answer to ICE Raids on Immigrant Food Processors

An open immigration policy means letting people from anywhere work for whatever amount they want.

|

Earlier this month, agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raided seven poultry processors in Mississippi, "arresting 680 mostly Latino workers in the largest workplace sting in at least a decade." 

The raids are intended to advance the Trump administration's "signature domestic priority to crack down on illegal immigration." A Trump administration official claimed they may be among the largest such raids ever.

While nearly half of those arrested were found to be U.S. citizens or people working legally in the country, poultry processing involves backbreaking, monotonous, and often dangerous work that U.S. citizens generally are often unwilling to perform. "[T]he plants' tough processing jobs have mainly been filled by Latino immigrants eager to take whatever work they can get," the AP reports.

In a complicated piece in The Atlantic last week, Fast Food Nation author Eric Schlosser wrote, "Far from being a drain on the American economy, immigrants have become an essential component of it." (If I were splitting hairs, I'd argue immigrants have always been an essential component of the U.S. economy.)

Schlosser describes the many "poor, vulnerable, undocumented, often desperate" immigrant farmworkers and food-industry workers he's met over the years as "hardworking" and "the bedrock of our food system." They're people who have "taken enormous risks and suffered great hardships on behalf of their families." Schlosser laments that "they are now being scapegoated, hunted down, and terrorized" by the Trump administration.

I agree with each of those points. But Schlosser also blasts the "multinational companies that dominate our food system [and] have for many years embraced the opportunity to exploit [immigrant labor] for profit." But aren't those the same companies that employ the hardworking immigrants Schlosser supposedly champions?

Schlosser then proposes a solution that's likely to exacerbate the very problems he wants to solve. He urges U.S. consumers not to by foods that are "produced by America's large industrial meatpacking companies." In other words, Schlosser wants Americans to boycott many of the largest companies that employ immigrants—legal and undocumented alike.

Boycotting their employers probably won't help immigrants. But while Schlosser's main gripe is with Trump, an overriding theme in his piece is that immigrant labor has supplanted union labor—largely, he adds, because food companies prefer the lower wages and greater power imbalance that comes with hiring undocumented workers.

Unions (and their supporters) and immigrants have long had an uneasy relationship. Famed California farmworker and union activist Cesar Chavez and his United Farm Workers (UFW) union didn't exactly embrace immigrants or immigration. In fact, some of their activities sound downright Trumpian in nature.

"In 1973, the UFW established 'wet line' outposts along the Arizona-Mexico border to prevent Mexicans from entering the United States to break UFW strikes," PBS detailed as part of a 1997 documentary on Chavez, which also notes the UFW's "mistreatment of undocumented workers in Arizona."

More recently, unions have sought to bolster their waning membership by embracing immigrant laborers.

Schlosser wants more union jobs. I want the U.S. to welcome more immigrants. Both of us want to defeat the forces of anti-immigrant animosity, like Trump, who called the raids "a very good deterrent," and Mississippi's Republican Lt. Governor Tate Reeves, who's running for the state's top job and praised the raids that put his own neighbors in chains. 

So why not open up our borders and allow anyone who wants to work in this country to do so?

NEXT: How Work Got Good

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The answer to ICE raids is simple — we need to #AbolishICE. Fortunately that has become a mainstream idea within the Democratic Party as it embraces the Koch / Reason open borders agenda. I predict their 2020 nominee will campaign and win on an explicit platform of unlimited, unrestricted immigration.

    #VoteDemocratForOpenBorders
    #ImmigrationAboveAll

    1. Abolishing ICE is indeed the libertarian answer.

    2. ╔════╗───────────────╔═══╦═══╦═══╦═══╗─╔╗╔╗╔╗
      ╚═╗╔═╝───────────────╚══╗║╔═╗╠══╗║╔═╗║─║║║║║║
      ──║║─╔══╦╗╔╦════╦══╗─╔══╝║║─║╠══╝║║─║║─║║║║║║
      ──║║─║╔═╣║║║╔╗╔╗║╔╗║─║╔══╣║─║║╔══╣║─║║─╚╝╚╝╚╝
      ──║║─║║─║╚╝║║║║║║╚╝║─║╚══╣╚═╝║╚══╣╚═╝║─╔╗╔╗╔╗
      ──╚╝─╚╝─╚══╩╝╚╝╚╣╔═╝─╚═══╩═══╩═══╩═══╝─╚╝╚╝╚╝
      ────────────────║║
      ────────────────╚╝
      ____________________________________________________

      1. + 1 billion

      2. The Chosen One will save us all!!! Hallelujah!

        Government Almighty CAN work, if only it is BIG ENOUGH, with the RIGHT PEOPLE in charge!

        “Government Almighty, giveth, and Government Almighty taketh away; blessed be the name of Government Almighty.”

        Let’s give it up for Government Almighty!!!

        Dearest Government Almighty:
        Our Nannies, who art in D.C.,
        Hallowed by Thy Names!
        Thy Wokeness come,
        Thy Will be done,
        Everywhere, as it is in D.C.
        Give us permission to be,
        And forgive us our 3 felonies per day,
        As we bake cakes for those who are gay.
        Lead us not into incorrectness,
        But deliver us from un-wokeness.
        For Thine is the Empire and the power and the glory,
        Forever and ever and ever! Amen!

        1. Oops. Well that was supposed to be a laughing and crying emoji.

    3. “we need to #AbolishICE.”

      Agreed! When humans are outlawed, only outlaws will be humans!

  2. “So why not open up our borders and allow anyone who wants to work in this country to do so?

    BLASPHEMY!!! Everyone KNOWS that immigrants aren’t REAL people. /s

    1. A stupid take on a stupid take.

      Let’s see if you even have a bit of thought or honesty. Could the u.s. import 1 billion low skilled workers tomorrow without any negative externalities? Think about infrastructure, shared resources, licensed medical care etc. If you answer no, what is the limit they can import before the negatives outweigh the positives?

      Remember, we already import more than 1 million immigrants a year.

      1. So “externalities” are a thing now that you need it for your argument?

      2. You are so tiresome, Jesse.

      3. I wonder why illegals were needed since job fairs done afterwards brought in legal workers to replace all of the illegals easily.

      4. You make the same mistake as so many others on both sides — “import” is the problem. It means “actively seek and bring in”, not “free migration”.

        One side insists on bringing in refugees and endentured servants who do not really want to be here, or at least not under those circumstances “offered”, which builds resentment all around. The other side wants to shut the border period, to everyone.

        Just like people who can’t envision getting government out of the way as with slavery, then Jim Crow, then affirmative action, instead of simply removing the government-mandated racism; these two sides can’t imagine just getting government out of the equation. It’s one thing to check for disease or master criminals, another thing to have quotas (racial, religious, skills, wealth, familial relationships). Both sides are so infatuated with government in charge and dreams of them being in charge of government, that they would rather continue with government in charge of the wrong side than even discuss the non-governmental middle ground.

        1. The other side wants to shut the border period, to everyone.

          You’re hallucinating. There is no such “side”.

          1. Exactly. But he knows that, he’s just dishonest. And it’s a good example why there can’t be a good honest debate on the subject.

          2. You’re ignorant and/or naive if you think nobody wants to shut the borders entirely.

            Go ahead and tell each other that, but you can’t change reality, and you only show others how blind you pretend to be.

            1. I don’t think it’s “nobody”, there’s extremists of all sorts. But when you describe the entire side of some border control that way you’re being dishonest or ignorant.

            2. Can you name one person advocating that?

          3. Mexico just decriminalized recreational cocaine. Look for God’s Own Prohibitionists to respond to that (and Canadian cannabis) with Checkpoint Charlies, Antifaschistischer Schutzwall, snipers and East German Shepherds.

      5. Why don’t we discuss the negative externalities of what you propose, Jesse.

        Are there any negative externalities to strict border control?

        1. Why don’t you answer his question first?

          1. “Why don’t you answer his question first?”

            Because his “question” is nothing of the sort.

        2. Are there any negative externalities to open borders?

          1. Yes, there are.

            Are there negative externalities to strict border security?

            1. Yes there is. Now which has fewer? That is the real debate. Or which have enough benefits to offset the negatives, again that is where the debate is at.

              1. But Jeffy insists he has an inviolable right to invite anyone he wants to enter our country, including dangerous convicts, in any numbers, so he won’t agree that any practical consideration is relevant, let alone “where the debate is”.

      6. “Could the u.s. import 1 billion low skilled workers tomorrow without any negative externalities?”

        Please let us know when you return to planet earth.
        If you propose an actual argument, try keeping it within the realm of reality.

      7. Haha. Virtue signaling requires no thought about your questions. In fact, it forbids it.

      8. People are not “imports” Jesse. Slavery has been abolished.

        Ah but I see that point has already been made.

        1. That is pure sophistry. Nothing indicated he was making any reference to slavery by stating import. In fact it isn’t an uncommon turn of phrase to describe the act of sponsoring H1B visa holders as importing them. But it is easier to demonize your opponents then it is to engage them rationally. This your reference to slavery.v

          1. Goods and commodities are imported. H1b holders are hired.

            The difference is important. To describe people in terms used for objects is to dehumanize them.

            1. No, the word imported is commonly used without any reference to slavery. To purposely misconstrue his meaning was just intellectually dishonest on your part. It was pure gotcha-ism at its best.

            2. And purposely misconstruing people’s meaning is also dehumanizing.

              1. I mean no offense. I just have a thing about that.

              2. And I do not consider you or anyone else here an opponent. I come here to discuss and express opinions. To disagree is a good thing. Wouldn’t learn anything if we all agreed. I do not have any goal of “winning” anything.

          2. Soldiermedic

            I bring up slavery because in that case people were actually treated as objects they were imported and sold.

            1. The idea of ignoring illegal immigrants so the can do all the icky jobs, for lower pay, than naturalized and natural born citizens (and legal immigrants) is almost as appalling.

              1. Hell, even allowing huge numbers of undereducated, low skill legal immigrants for the same reason is also difficult to defend.
                Hey, let’s bring in more low skill workers, pay them crap and make them do all the crappy jobs, aren’t we such humanitarians?

      9. Most of the wretches and starvelings trying to get in hail from fascist dictatorships those priority is seeing to it that any attempt at organizing a libertarian party is crushed underfoot. Uruguay, Argentina and Mexico have libertarian parties. Brazil, Venezuela, Cuba and Bolivia persecute such heresy, and several others put up anarchist-communist impersonations as decoys. Canada has a fully functioning LP, and we therefore see no mobs of starving Canooks attempting uninspected entry.

      10. The problem with the idea to “open up our borders and allow anyone who wants to work in” is that we don’t know if those people coming in are coming for the free health care, the welfare, to engage in criminal activity, to engage in terrorism, or to work. Further we don’t know if they have communicable diseases. Advocating for open borders while we have welfare that immigrants get is an insult to US taxpayers, and will help Trump get re-elected.

        Boycotting big meat isn’t the answer, and neither is advocating for open borders and expecting existing US taxpayers to support them when many of them prey upon others. The argument that immigrants commit less crime than citizens is saying you support criminals immigrating – they should be vetted and we should only let good people into the US. People who want more immigration, and I’m one of them, need to advocate for a system that allows good citizens to immigrate, not anyone who wants to come here.

    2. The gang members certainly aren’t. They barely rise to the level of dog shit.

      1. Political parties are gangs.

        1. Doesn’t change the fact that MS-13 and the Latin Kings barely rise to the level of dog shit.

          1. Come on Red, MS-13 is just a boogeyman made up by Trump.

    3. Just as soon as the welfare state–including public schools and free emergency room treatment–is eliminated, sign me up as a supporter. I don’t care where you’re from or what color you are, so long as you work to support yourself and your family without sticking your hand into my pocket using the force of government. That includes citizens, for what it’s worth.

      That means I don’t want to pay to educate your kids, feed them free lunch at school, pay for their day-care. I don’t want to pay for your healthcare, food, or housing. I have enough trouble paying for my own.

      As long as people continue to talk about importing poverty into a welfare state, with the concomitant increase in the size of said welfare state and its insatiable demand for increased funding, I will continue to be against unrestricted immigration.

      Once the welfare state is gone, I will immediately support effectively unlimited immigration. I would still prefer if we could filter out known murderers, rapists, child-molesters, and gang members, but if you’re “good people” and want to work and support yourself, I’ll welcome you.

      1. As long as people continue to talk about importing poverty into a welfare state, with the concomitant increase in the size of said welfare state and its insatiable demand for increased funding, I will continue to be against unrestricted immigration.

        How would you regard, then, a low-income native-born couple having a child? Would you consider this childbirth “importing poverty”?

        1. Can’t speak for mpercy, but I certainly would. A number of states deny additional benefits to people who bear additional children when they’re on welfare. This seems like a highly reasonable policy, and the rationale for it seems very similar to that behind denying entry into the country to people who, either directly or through their offspring, are likely to prove a net burden for the taxpayer.

          1. Then if we are to be consistent, we should regard “importing poverty” via childbirth, and “importing poverty” via immigration, the same way.

            Right now, a current demand from the border restrictionist right is that immigrants should only be permitted by the state to come here if they will not be a net burden on taxpayers. Then, perhaps we should also consider that childbirth should only be permitted by the state to occur if the child will not be a net burden on taxpayers. Not “additional children”, but childbirth itself. So parents would have to prove to the state that they have the resources to raise a child without consuming welfare.

            In fact, from a mathematical point of view, treating childbirth just like immigration, will save far more taxpayer money – children are expensive, with pediatric care and education, while most immigrants who come here aren’t babies and have had at least some education, so the amount of welfare that they would consume is less. Plus, there are just more children born here than there are immigrants who come here. In 2017, there were 3.8 million babies born in the US, and about half of those were paid for by Medicaid. By contrast, in 2017, there were 800,000 immigrants who came here. So just in a purely mathematical sense, it would save a lot of money to treat childbirth as a privilege to be granted by the state, just like immigration is now treated.

            1. The biggest problem being that the Constitution gives Congress no authority to do such, but arguably does allow it to create immigration law. I know your response will be to deride the idea of legislative power but we are dealing with realities. To get your interpretation you either have to get the courts to agree, add an amendment or win enough power to achieve your goals. None of which look remotely likely.

              1. I’m thinking in conceptual terms here. Suppose that there was no Constitutional impediment to the government regulating childbirth as I put forth above. Should the state regulate childbirth on the same terms that it regulates immigration? If not, why not?

                1. Oh, suppose the gold Fairy visited whenever I was broke?

                  1. No, let’s suppose that you were interested in discussing the big picture, conceptual idea on an abstract level.

                    1. No, let’s suppose you were capable of making this argument with any degree of intellectual honesty, instead of your typical hypotheticals.

                    2. No, you WON’T address the point and would rather engage in debate games than participate in the discussion.

                    3. Let us suppose we actually argue reality rather than fairy tales. The Constitution is not going anywhere so you have to work within it’s framework or change it. Period!

                    4. In other words, you are pulling a cop-out and refusing to discuss the merits of the idea.

                  2. No, arguing purely hypotheticals, that will never happen, is the cop out. You state you are arguing the merits. But that allows you to avoid arguing how your proposal will actually work in the real world. You are trying a form of self obvious sophistry.

            2. In 2017, there were 3.8 million babies born in the US, and about half of those were paid for by Medicaid. By contrast, in 2017, there were 800,000 immigrants who came here.

              Talk about cherry-picking. How many of those 3.8 million babies were born to immigrants as a whole, not just the ones who arrived the same year?

              It’s like you have no concept of how exponential functions work.

              1. What is your point?

                1. The point is that your comparison is stupid and has no basis in fact.

                  1. My point is that native-born citizens cost the state more in terms of welfare than immigrants do, and citing the number of childbirths (half of which are paid for by the state) is one way to make that claim.

                    Do you think my claim is false? If so, how so?

                    1. His point is what percentage of those 3.8 million are the children of immigrants? And of those, how many are on welfare? Once you’ve established that, then your point can be made (or not).

                    2. Well, CIS says that 20% of births are to immigrants.
                      https://cis.org/Report/Births-Legal-and-Illegal-Immigrants-US

                      And even if every single one was paid for by Medicaid (they weren’t), it would still be a minority of all of the public childbirth costs.

                      Is it really in doubt that native-born citizens consume more welfare than immigrants do?

                    3. That is a much better data point. Okay, now the question becomes if Medicaid use is so out of control by native born why would we allow more in that will raise the use? I am not debating rather this is right or wrong, but it is an argument some make.

            3. The government shouldn’t prohibit such births, but should not provide additional benefits to that family. (Of course the gov shouldn’t be giving out those bennies in the first place)

              We once had a can-do culture of personal responsibility. Wha happened? FDR, LBJ, etc and their Hollywood friends turned everything into someone else’s fault/responsibility.

              1. The government shouldn’t prohibit such births

                Why not? Childbirth can be viewed as just another form of immigration. If immigration policy should be set such that those who are likely to be on the dole are to be denied entry, then why shouldn’t that same type of policy apply to native-born childbirths?

                I mean, are we *serious* about tearing down the welfare state, or not?

                1. Immigrant means someone who crosses the border.

          2. “Who are likely to prove a net burden to the taxpayer”

            How is that determined on an individual level? If the person were given a work permit how likely is likely?

            In my experience and historical experience immigrants tend to be hard working. The chicken pluckers arrested and deported were all working and paying taxes. Would you be ok with letting them stay at their jobs?

        2. That’s local production of poverty.

          That’s something that we incentivize too much, but we also see having children as the right of a citizen.

          1. we also see having children as the right of a citizen.

            Why should it be the right of some welfare princess to pop out a baby and force me the taxpayer to support that baby?

            1. It shouldn’t. So why do you support importing even more of them?

              1. It shouldn’t.

                Okay then. So are you in favor of strict regulation of childbirth?

                Why should welfare moms be permitted to give birth in the first place?

                1. And you haven’t answered my question.
                  Why should welfare moms be permitted to give birth in the first place?

              2. So why do you support importing even more of them?

                I don’t support “importing” anyone. I am opposed to slavery.

                1. You are in favor of slavery of Americans by big government foreigners.

                  1. Is this where you redefine words to mean something other than what they actually mean in order to make some sort of hyperbolic statement? I believe so.

                    1. It’s amusing to have an open borders anarchist denying that big government is initiation of force.

                      Slaver.

                    2. Oh good heavens. It’s THE STATE that initiates force when it redistributes wealth. Not the voters themselves.

                      You seem to believe that foreigners simply BEING HERE represents some type of slavery against you. This is catastrophist and ridiculous.

                    3. “Don’t blame me, I only voted for totalitarianism!”

        3. ” I don’t care where you’re from or what color you are, so long as you work to support yourself and your family without sticking your hand into my pocket using the force of government. That includes citizens, for what it’s worth.”

          So yeah, I consider that low-income native born child on welfare the other side of the same coin. Which is why item #1 is “Just as soon as the welfare state–including public schools and free emergency room treatment–is eliminated,”…

          Currently, though, immigration of incoming poverty is a valve that we can close. File it under the first rule of holes…stop digging.

          If my house is being flooded because I have a burst pipe in my basement, it’s stupid for me to run a hose from my neighbor’s hose bib to run more water into the basement too.

          1. If my house is being flooded because I have a burst pipe in my basement, it’s stupid for me to run a hose from my neighbor’s hose bib to run more water into the basement too.

            But from purely a mathematical point of view, that’s not true. Native-born citizens consume far more welfare than immigrants do.

            So to modify your metaphor, it would be as if you have a fire in your kitchen, and a leaky faucet in your bathroom. Focusing all the outrage and effort on immigrants using welfare is like obsessing over the leaky faucet, while the fire in the kitchen is raging.

            If you really want to do something about cutting down on the welfare state, then you have to do something about that fire in the kitchen. And treating immigration via childbirth the same way as immigration via crossing a border is a way to do that, no?

            1. No, even if the burst pipe is pumping 250gpm into the house, running over to get a garden hose to pump in an additional 10gpm is insanity. Especially since I have to wait for the city government to come by to shut off the water main for the house, turning off that garden hose is low-hanging fruit toward minimizing the problem.

              If you want the state to also start forcing abortions on people or forcibly sterilizing them or putting them in prison for violating a no-children policy, that’s on you. I favor simply removing the perverse incentives that welfare state has created…more kids will not equal more welfare benefits once we eliminate the welfare state.

    4. Albert you’re confused. We’re talking about illegals,not immigrants.

      1. Illegals whats?

        Seriously, go back to death squad LARPing, pedantry doesn’t suit you.

      2. “Albert you’re confused. We’re talking about illegals,not immigrants.”

        Not confused at all. In fact, my post was intended to attract argumentative comments.

        My personal position (simplified) is not for open borders to anyone who wants to come here. On the other hand, someone who has a legitimate reason for wanting to come here (including bettering themselves and their families), and can also demonstrate that they have been law-abiding, should not be barred from entry. That sort of policy, along with an overhaul/elimination of the current welfare state, just might be good for everyone involved. And yes, due to the current, and ongoing, political state of affairs, neither of those things is likely to come to fruition for a long, long, time.

  3. Stupid article.

    Not a word about the purity of our white women (well, not the college-educated ones so much).

    1. The ones in your family certainly polluted the gene pool.

    2. Define white. Is a Hispanic of Irish heritage white? Or German? Or Porteuegese? Is my cousin who is 3/4 Norse, Dane and 3/16th German and 1/16th French Canadian Indian? I notice it seems to be progressives and open border types who most want to designate all Hispanics (until they shoot a kid in apparent self defense) as not white.

    3. “Everyone who opposes Invasion USA is a white supremacist!”

      Imagine being so brain dead.

  4. An open immigration policy means letting people from anywhere work for whatever amount they want.

    Wrong. Open immigration means letting anyone who can get here come in and stay. Whether they work or not is a separate matter.

    So why not open up our borders and allow anyone who wants to work in this country to do so?

    Because open borders would result in a catastrophic tsunami of immigrants whose home countries offer them such bad lives and poor prospects that life in the USA would attract them, whether or not they can find jobs here. If we really need foreign workers, we can let them in to work without accepting all of them as permanent immigrants. We certainly don’t need to throw open the gates to everyone in the world just to attract enough foreign workers to fill jobs that Americans allegedly won’t do.

    1. It literally the most sophomoric question I’ve ever seen asked by a reason writer, devoid of all reason. They dont understand that work/jobs are not the only thing utilized by people in the country.

      1. Nor is lack of employment in their home shitholes the only thing that motivates people to come here.

      2. I Shikha using a non de plume?

    2. They often refer to the late 19th/early 20th century as proof that immigration is a net positive (which it is generally speaking). But they forget to mention the frontier and the need to establish settlement. Even into the 20th centuries many areas of the upper midwest and western US were virtually unsettled. Additionally, the ever expanding manufacturing base also required huge numbers of workers. But neither of those conditions exist currently. The idea there are jobs that only immigrants will do is because immigrants help to offset the supply side. Therefore, employers can pay lower wages. Now this may benefit Americans as a whole because it keeps our food cheaper. And other services cheaper. But to pretend that we can’t find ways to fill these jobs without immigrants isn’t accurate or intellectually honest. Even without raising wages many of these jobs could be eliminated or combined using automation. We already seeing dairies increasingly using robotic milkers, vegetable and fruit growers using robotic pickers. Potato factories using colormetric sensors to sort potatoes etc.

      1. They also forget to mention that after a period of high immigration, immigration was drastically restricted for decades by the Act of 1924, which set quotas based on country of origin and the number of people from those countries already here. This gave the US a “breather” for a few decades, allowing newcomers already here to assimilate into American life. If immigration had been allowed to continue at the earlier rates, there would have been far more negative consequences.

        1. Reflections on the Immigration Act of 1924

          https://www.cato.org/blog/reflections-immigration-act-1924

          The supporters of the 1924 Act gave several reasons for blocking immigration from Europe.

          Prescott Hall, co-founder of the Immigration Restriction League that concocted the national origin scheme, wrote: “Do we want this country to be peopled by British, German, and Scandinavian stock … or by Slav, Latin, and Asiatic races, historically downtrodden, atavistic, and stagnant?”

          Representative Albert Johnson, chairman of the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, was also the head of the Eugenics Research Association. One of Johnson’s key advisers on immigration was Madison Grant, author of the 1916 best seller The Passing of the Great Race, a tract that denigrated Asians, blacks, and split Europeans along absurdly antiquated racial lines. They wrote Hall’s scheme into law.

          Why did the 1924 Act use a complex national-origins system to discriminate (mostly) based on race and ethnicity when they could have just explicitly discriminated based on race and ethnicity? Prominent 1924 Act supporter and New York University sociologist Henry Pratt Fairchild explained the answer to that in his 1926 book The Melting Pot Mistake:

          “The question will probably at once arise, why, if this legislation was a response to a demand for racial discrimination, was it expressed in terms of nationality? The answer is simple. As has already been shown, our actual knowledge of the racial composition of the American people, to say nothing of the various foreign groups, is so utterly inadequate that the attempt to use it as a basis of legislation would have led to endless confusion and intolerable litigation. So Congress substituted the term nationality, and defined nationality as country of birth. It is clear, then, that ‘nationality,’ as used in this connection, does not conform exactly to the correct definition of either nationality or race. But in effect it affords a rough approximation to the racial character of the different immigrant streams [Emphasis added].”

          Fear of litigation, administrative simplicity, and the knowledge that nationality and race were close enough for this piece of discriminatory legislation to achieve their goals made explicit discrimination unnecessary.

          1. Oh look, Pedo Jeffy took a break from his child porn viewing to shitpost here.

            We sure are lucky.

          2. He wasn’t defending it he was simply pointing out it’s existence.

    3. Letting them stay, and eventually letting them vote.

      Immigrants prefer bigger government than Americans.

      Reason’s “libertarian” policy is to make the US less and less libertarian, with ever expanding government.

      1. So is the suggestion to craft immigration policy or restrict immigration altogether based on likely voting preferences?

        Is that somehow more libertarian?

        Just asking.

        1. Immigration policy should be crafted to the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.

          And yes, that’s more libertarian than policies that destroy Liberty in America.

  5. Big Meat was my nick name in collage.

    1. You had a boyfriend named Nick?

    2. I checked the thread just to confirm that someone would make a “Big Meat” pun.

  6. We have HUGE numbers of Americans who were born here on the RIGHT side of the railroad tracks, who resent the idea of the invading hordes of illegal sub-humans coming here and taking all of our jobs (which we personally won’t do). MANY-many hairs being pulled out of our collective scalps over that one!

    Not NEARLY as much hair-pulling over ROBOTS taking our jobs!!!

    So here’s how we fix it! Listen up!

    We invent new, bio-based, VERY humanoid robots (far more efficient, flexible, and affordable than the robots we have today). They will be SOOOO lifelike, you can’t tell them from REAL humans, except for their identifying labels on the backs of their necks! Not “Pedro Gonzales” but BR549ZQWPEDRO7763458GONZALES030102, for example. His or her owners in Mexico might have pay tariffs at the border incoming into the USA, but the USA corporations can pay rent (user’s fees, yada yada) to the owners, who will in turn be charged with taking good care of the robots. Kinda like contract workers today…

    ROBOTS, not ILLEGAL SUB-HUMANS, see?!? Then they’ll be FAR less objectionable! All we need is a good super-genius who can sing and dance an EXCELLENT routine, while performing a VERY high-tech hocus-pocus “conversion procedure”!

    1. Job fairs after the raids had no problem finding Americans to do the work the illegals were doing.

      So, why presume Americans won’t do it when evidence doesn’t come close to backing it up?

      1. Oh bullshit!

        https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-fi-farms-immigration/

        Wages rise on California farms. Americans still don’t want the job
        Trump’s immigration crackdown is supposed to help U.S. citizens. For California farmers, it’s worsening a desperate labor shortage.

        I have read of this kind of problem a zillion times! Most American recruits who show up, last a day or two at the most. Then they quit. Are you ready to give it a try?

        1. Sure, they quit. It’s easier to work that one day and go back to ask for more unemployment checks and welfare. Remove the safety hammock and at least a few more will want to eat badly enough to do the jobs. There’s nothing magical about immigrants doing those jobs, it’s not like Americans are unable to do them. Lots of Americans work hard every day at shitty backbreaking jobs, too. But yeah, there exists a goodly pile of Americans who would rather stay in the welfare system than work. Maybe if the safety net against hunger consisted of a rice and beans ration instead of a debit card that can be used at McDonald’s, and if the safety net against housing was not a Section 8 rent coupon but a bed in a barracks-style shelter a few more would be out there working. The safety hammock makes sure a lot fewer want to get out and work at shitty jobs that nonetheless need to get done.

        2. Yet in MS, after the raids, several hundred people showed up at job fairs for those jobs.

          Can you, uh, explain that?

          1. And how long did they STAY on these jobs after they learned what the jobs really entail?

        3. So, you’re saying we need new slaves? How progressive of you. Give yourself a pat on the back!

          Haha

    2. “Everyone who disagrees with me is Hitler!”

      It’s just so boring.

      1. OK, so, then, PLEASE tell us WHO all said…

        “Everyone who disagrees with me is Hitler!”

        I do want to avoid wasting my time with boring people, I’d like to know who to avoid…

  7. But while Schlosser’s main gripe is with Trump, an overriding theme in his piece is that immigrant labor has supplanted union labor…

    So he’s not championing the immigrant worker but in fact it seems as he’s exploiting current concern over ICE raids and the plight of their targets to push unionization, the same unionization that has helped price the American worker out of the labor market and spurred the employment of illegal immigrants.

  8. Fuck unions, always go with a merit shop.

  9. How can one, with any degree of intellectual consistency, simultaneously champion immigrants as hard-working valuable people who work the jobs no one else wants to work and are vital to the economy, while also condemning those who employ them as exploiters who need to be driven out of business?

    I can’t help suspecting that the left’s new found love for immigrants is nothing more than a short term political device for winning back the presidency, similar to their short-lived embrace of Cindy Sheehan and opposition to “endless war” in 2006.

    1. I can’t help suspecting that the left’s new found love for immigrants is nothing more than a short term political device for winning back the presidency

      There’s nothing to suspect–they’ve been quite open about their policy goal to increase immigration to subsequently create a larger voting base, going back to at least 2000 after the Bush-Gore debacle. The idea has been to flood the country with immigrants to increase Dem strangleholds on blue states and overwhelm the non-Dem voters in red states.

      1. The thing is that it appears Hispanics aren’t staying on the plantation though. Polling indicates Trump is approved by 40-50% of Hispanics in a number of polls (and over a third of African Americans). There is also indications among Asian immigrants a shifting towards more conservative ideals.

    2. There is no love for immigrants. It’s all a political device.

    3. They’re importing the Democratic Voters that Americans won’t make.

    4. How can one, with any degree of intellectual consistency, simultaneously champion immigrants as hard-working valuable people who work the jobs no one else wants to work and are vital to the economy and complain when rules designed to prevent them from using the welfare state are imposed or enforced?

      If they’re so valuable and such a positive impact on the economy, then they have no need for welfare benefits, right?

  10. So many interesting points, hard to know where to start.

    “An open immigration policy means letting people from anywhere work for whatever amount they want.”

    If we’re splitting hairs, why not pitch this on the basis of freedom of association rather than on the basis of an open immigration policy?

    I’m not an ICE agent. Why am I responsible for policing immigration? Why shouldn’t I be free to hire whomever I please to mow my lawn or babysit my kids? If I start a landscaping company or own a meat packing plant, why would my freedom of association suddenly go away?

    I appreciate that plenty of people argue that immigrants come to the U.S. and get on socialist welfare programs, especially in sanctuary cities, and that becomes a burden on the taxpayer–but the idea that the existence of welfare programs means my right to association is forfeit is fundamentally authoritarian and, even, I would argue, unconstitutional. Should our First Amendment rights or Second Amendment rights be forfeit because the government can’t stop some people from posting racist manifestos online before perpetrating mass shootings, too?

    The idea that the rights of third parties should be violated on any of these justifications is authoritarian, and it’s even worse when you consider the case of people who employ immigrant labor vis-a-vis socialist welfare programs–because opposing socialist welfare programs is entirely possible without violating anyone’s freedom of association rights at all. If you want to vote for politicians who want to cut socialist welfare programs, you can!

    I’ve supported eliminating rent subsidies, food stamps, Medicaid–all of them entirely–for decades, but I’ve never once supported violating anybody’s freedom of association in order to accomplish that. Meanwhile, if you want to make a distinction between U.S. citizens and non-citizens in regards to the eligibility for welfare, you’re bumping up against some nasty ideology. There’s a word for people who imagine that being a citizen entitles you to free rent, free food, and free healthcare–they’re called “communists”. There’s a word for people who think the solution to our problems is to ignore our rights–like freedom of association. They’re called “authoritarians”.

    I’m a libertarian capitalist–not an authoritarian communist.

    1. Nice point — the destruction of freedom of association by forced government discrimination has always pissed me off, and I’ve always detested the idea of government telling me who I could hire or visit or rent to, but I’d never thought of it under “freedom of association”.

      About the only difference in how much disrespect freedom of association and the right to self-defense get is that one is an enumerated right.

      1. My simple reading of the First Amendment sees freedom of association expressed in the right “to peaceably assemble”, but it’s also implied in so many other rights. You don’t have the right to choose your own church if you don’t have the right to peaceably assemble with others for a common interest. Why wouldn’t that also include people peacefully assembling by hiring whomever they like to work for them or quitting any employer they don’t want to work for anymore?

    2. Ken, do you go to other countries that have borders and rules to complain about their restrictions on your “freedom of association”?

      1. Ken is (from what I can tell) an American citizen commenting on an article about American immigration policy. Whether or not Panama would benefit from a less restrictive immigration policy is 100% irrelevant.

    3. Associate with anyone you like.

      But your preferences for association are not the only consideration in immigration policy. And what of the preferences of Americans who don’t want to live in a Latin American colony? Do their preferences matter?

      Government is a gun. Citizens vote to point that gun. Immigration means putting that gun in the hands of people who will use it to initiate force against Americans. The data is clear. That’s how they vote in America. That’s how they vote in their countries of origin.

      Import Not Americans, Become Not America.

      1. “your preferences for association are not the only consideration in immigration policy. And what of the preferences of Americans who don’t want to live in a Latin American colony? Do their preferences matter?”

        We should be careful not to conflate doing things that harm other people with doing things that violate other people’s rights. That’s two different things.

        The problem with the observation that we should be free to do anything that doesn’t harm anyone else is that almost everything we do (or don’t do) harms someone else in some way. According to some scientists, I harm the environment through climate change every time I exhale. Every time I buy from one store rather than another, I’m harming someone’s employer and the people who work there. If I open a competing pizza business next to yours, it could drive you out of business. You could lose your business, lose your home, your wife could divorce you, and she could take the kids and require you to pay money you don’t have to see them–all because I opened a competing pizza delivery business right next to yours. I should be perfectly free to harm you in that way anyway.

        The idea that we shouldn’t be free to do anything if it harms someone else is a big problem because that formulation doesn’t leave us free to do much of anything without getting everybody’s permission first–including the people who will be harmed by me opening a business, shopping where I want, or growing wheat on my own property.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

        Yeah, if you imagine that other people shouldn’t be free to do something if someone else might be adversely affected by their actions, then you’re leaving them free to do practically nothing without the government’s permission. I’m a libertarian capitalist, not an authoritarian socialist.

        The correct formulation is that we should all be free to do anything we want–so long as we don’t violate anyone’s rights. I have a right to criticize you in public, even if the truths I tell are harmful to you. There are people in this world who imagine that no one should be free to say things that hurt other people’s feelings. I believe that other people being free to say things that might hurt me is fundamental to a free society, and that the government stepping in and punishing people just for saying hurtful things is fundamentally authoritarian.

        It’s the same way with freedom of association. I have the right to associate with whomever I please–regardless of whether my choices harm you in some way–so long as I don’t use my associations to violate your rights.

        No one has an obligation to consider your best interests when making choices for themselves. We’re only obligated to respect your right to make choices for yourself. If you don’t like your neighbors, you should be free to move wherever your like. Other people should be free to rent to or sell to anyone they like–whether you like it or not. The legitimate purpose of government is not to inflict the will of like-minded people on the unwilling. It’s to protect our rights.

        1. Thank you for saving me the trouble of explaining the distinction between harm and rights.

          Your desire for cheap labor on American soil entails violating the rights of Americans when your cheap labor votes for ever expanding government.

          You may feel *harmed* by being deprived of cheap foreign human widgets, but you don’t have a right to inflict ever bigger government on Americans.

          1. “Your desire for cheap labor on American soil entails violating the rights of Americans when your cheap labor votes for ever expanding government.”

            Rights are the obligation to respect other people’s choices.

            I have the right to choose my associates.

            Your desire to pay less for socialist welfare programs does not justify violating my right to associate with whomever I please.

            I suggest you advocate for cutting socialist welfare programs without violating my rights.

            P.S. Your desire to prevent mass shootings doesn’t justify violating the rights of gun owners either. The idea that violating people’s rights is the solution to our problems is the very stuff that authoritarianism in all forms is made of. If libertarianism is the idea that individuals should be free to make choices for themselves, then a good definition for authoritarianism might be the idea that violating individual rights is the solution to our problems.

            1. Your right to associate with anyone you please does not entail the right to set US immigration to suit your association preferences and impose ever expanding big government violation of the rights of US citizens.

              If you’re dying to associate with foreigners, I suggest you go visit them in their countries. Or contact them through skype. I wouldn’t dream of preventing you.

              Hasta la vista.

              1. “Your right to associate with anyone you please does not entail the right to set US immigration to suit your association preferences and impose ever expanding big government violation of the rights of US citizens.”

                Yeah, the right to set immigration and naturalization policy is enumerated to Congress in the Constitution.

                That’s the same Constitution that prohibits Congress from violating my association rights in the First Amendment with, “Congress shall make now law . . . “

                1. Still haven’t shown how you have a right to Invasion USA because you want to associate with foreigners.

      2. Associate with anyone you like.

        But …

        I’m in favor of free speech, but…
        I’m in favor of gun rights, but…

        1. I’m in favor of free speech, but am opposed to libel and slander.
          I’m in favor of gun rights, but opposed to you murdering people with your gun.

          You are so dumb.

          1. Libel and slander violate people’s rights.
            Murder violates people’s rights.

            Which rights, and whose rights, are violated if I choose to associate with a foreigner without permission from the state?

            1. The rights of American citizens are violated by the big government policies supported by immigrants.

              You can associated with anyone you please. Foreigners can’t all come to the US. If you wish to associate with those we deny entry, you are free to call, skype, or visit them in person.

              I especially recommend that you visit them in person.

              1. The rights of American citizens are violated by the big government policies supported by immigrants.

                This is utterly absurd. The mere act of voting for someone does not violate anyone’s rights.

                You are utterly insistent that immigrants, as a whole, will do harm to the US, aren’t you?

                You can associated with anyone you please. Foreigners can’t all come to the US. If you wish to associate with those we deny entry, you are free to call, skype, or visit them in person.

                In other words, you only are willing to recognize my freedom of association but only if I’m associating with an “approved” person. That’s not how liberty works.

                And who gave you the right to decide who I may or may not invite onto my property? Do you claim some property rights over my property?

                1. “The mere act of voting for someone does not violate anyone’s rights.”

                  Don’t blame me, I only voted for totalitarianism. That it was implemented isn’t my fault!

                  Always the endless disconnect from reality. From cause and effect. From actions and consequences.

              1. Whose property rights?

                It’s a violation of MY property rights for the state to forbid me from inviting a person of my choosing onto my own property without their permission.

                1. Our property rights. Commonly held property, like all public spaces, are under the jurisdiction of various elected governments. Through them we assert our shared property rights. Want to change that, elect different people and change the laws.

                  You are free to do as you please on your property.

        2. Yeah, if you don’t understand the difference between people exercising their rights and people violating someone else’s rights, then there’s no need to go any further. Go figure that out, first.

          Rights are the obligation to respect other people’s choices.

          Even property rights mean that I get to choose whether, when, if, how, etc. something is used. Freedom of religion is the right to choose your own religion. Second Amendment rights are the right to choose to purchase a gun. If you can’t figure out the difference between the right to choose to own a gun and willfully choosing to violate someone else’s rights with a gun, then . . . why discuss this any further?

          Go figure that difference out, first.

          1. When you’ve figured that the right to associate with whom you please does not entail the right to set US immigration policies per your association preferences, get back to me with an actual argument for Invasion USA if you ever locate one.

            Until then, I’ll just keep pointing out your desire to associate with foreigners does not oblige Americans to submit to invasion.

            1. “the right to associate with whom you please does not entail the right to set US immigration policies per your association preferences”

              People should be free to hire whomever they want to mow their lawns or babysit their kids without it having anything to do with the rules of naturalization (or immigration) set by Congress.

              That connection only seems to exist in your mind.

              If you want to deport someone I hired to mow my lawn, the fact that hired them isn’t about to stop you. But my right to association with whomever I please doesn’t only exist if it benefits you in some way. It doesn’t cease to exist just because you don’t like the way I exercise my right either. If you want to use the coercive power of government to punish people for exercising their individual rights in a way that you don’t like, then that’s what it means to be authoritarian. Don’t be surprised if people recognize it for what it is.

              What you’re saying is no different from authoritarians arguing that because illicit drug sales contribute to an increase in gang activity, we have to throw individuals in jail for buying marijuana. If you want to go after the gangs for violating people’s rights, go after the gangs for violating people’s rights. Why are you going after third parties for exercising their rights?

              The answer is because you’re an authoritarian. That’s what authoritarians do. They violate our individual rights because they don’t like the choices we make. You want to go after people for exercising their free association rights because you don’t like the choices they make–or their choices negatively impact you in some way–but I guess you also want us all to pretend that you’re not an authoritarian despite openly advocating violating other people’s rights. Maybe you want us to pretend that violating people’s rights is okay because you don’t like the way they were exercising their rights? Either way, authoritarian is authoritarian, and I won’t pretend otherwise.

              What are you going next–banning 30 round magazines because they can contribute to mass shootings? Same logic.

              1. If the government can prosecute me for exercising my association rights because illegal immigrants land on social welfare programs, then maybe the government should also ban smoking–because the taxpayers ultimately cover the cost of smoking through Medicaid and Medicare.

                Where does it end?

                I suggest we start by putting a stake through the idea that socialism justifies violating people’s fundamental rights. If you want to go after socialism, go after socialism. If you want to use socialism as an excuse to violate people’s rights, there’s a whole slew of progressives who would love to have you on board the socialist bandwagon.

                I’m a libertarian capitalist.

                1. I suggest we start by putting a stake through the idea that your associate rights justify inflicting ever bigger government on Americans.

                  1. Here’s a bill that came within a few votes of passing in the Senate just a couple of years ago:

                    https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52849

                    It would have cut $772 billion from Medicaid–a socialist welfare program for the poor that’s administered by states with sanctuary cities.

                    The House passed a version of that bill with even bigger cuts to Medicaid.
                    The President promised to sign that bill.
                    That bill came within a few votes of passing in the Senate.

                    $772 billion cut from a socialist welfare program!

                    That bill didn’t address immigration anywhere, and do you know why? It’s because the requirement that the government violate the free association rights of millions of individual Americans if they want to cut welfare benefits doesn’t exist in reality. It’s a delusion. In reality, we can cut welfare benefits without violating anyone’s free association rights at all.

                    The idea that it’s necessary to ignore or violate people’s individual rights in order to protect the generous benefits of the welfare state is a trope used by socialists and communists to justify their authoritarianism. It’s the same horseshit they use to justify restricting my choices to domestic producers. What if I don’t give a shit about UAW workers? Should my rights be violated to benefit UAW workers, too?

                    The legitimate purpose of government is not to violate people’s rights in such a way that it benefits your narcissistic ass. If you want to oppose socialist welfare spending, you’re free to do so. Your apparent belief that we can’t cut welfare spending without violating the association rights of millions of Americans is simply delusional. Your delusions aren’t a good enough reason to violate anybody’s rights–and they don’t justify doing anything else either.

                    1. “Don’t blame me for the big government imposed by the voting of my cheap human widgets. You should have voted harder!”

              2. Go ahead and hire all the foreigners you like.

                But knowingly hiring them while they’re breaking US immigration law is literally illegal. If the job you offer them *requires* them to violate US immigration law, your offer of employment is an inducement to crime, also a crime. You are a party of a conspiracy to violate US immigration law.

                You can associate with whomever you please. You can’t *do* whatever you please as you associate with others. Freedom of association is not freedom to associate and violate US law.

                Your attempt to turn your rights of association into a blank check for Invasion USA are a massive intellectual fail.

                And don’t expect me to quake in fear at your accusations of authoritarianism.

                You’re the one trying to destroy Liberty in America with your conspiracy to violate US immigration law and subject Americans to the will of those who would violate their rights.

                1. More pertinent, the rest of us also have freedom of association, which includes freedom to not associate with persons whom we choose.

                  1. What? Other people have rights too?

                    Who knew?

                    Not Ken, at least. His “muh association” rights entitle him to set US immigration policy.

    4. “Meanwhile, if you want to make a distinction between U.S. citizens and non-citizens in regards to the eligibility for welfare, you’re bumping up against some nasty ideology. ”

      Isn’t the logical conclusion here then that all the people in the world are entitled to US welfare benefits? Surely you do not want to limit their applicability only to the people who are feet-dry on US soil, do you? I mean, if there’s no reason to distinguish between US citizens vs non-citizens for welfare benefits, then surely there’s no reason to distinguish between US residents and people who are not residing in the US?

      And why limit the discussion to welfare benefits? It seems the next logical conclusion is that it is discriminatory to differentiate between US citizens and non-citizens for voting purposes. After all, non-citizens who live here are just as much impacted by government decisions and should have some say in them, right? And as before, why discriminate between people who are physically present and those who are not? The actions of the US impact the world, so we need to give the world a say in US elections.

      1. “Isn’t the logical conclusion here then that all the people in the world are entitled to US welfare benefits?”

        No.

        The logical conclusion is that citizenship entitles you to the right to vote.

        If you want rent, food, and healthcare, maybe you should get a job.

        If you’re so pathetic that you can’t support yourself, hopefully some private party will take pity on you. If no one will do that because you’re perfectly able bodied but too proud to do anything but parasite off of the taxpayers, then hopefully you’ll starve to death–you worthless piece of shit.

        1. The logical conclusion is that citizenship entitles you to the right to vote.

          So, some rights belong to all human beings, while others belong only to citizens? How do we distinguish one from the other? Why is the right to enter and live in the US a right of all humans, while the right to vote is for citizens only? Are we just to trust The Wisdom Of Ken on this?

          hopefully you’ll starve to death

          There is no possibility of the American people allowing masses of people to starve in the streets. If they are allowed to come here, we will try to feed, clothe, and shelter them, because that’s who we are. If we leave the gates wide open in a world full of want, we will be ruined by that effort.

          1. “So, some rights belong to all human beings, while others belong only to citizens? How do we distinguish one from the other?”

            This is so far out of left field . . .

            If you want to vote for the board of governors of General Electric, you have to be an owner of the company–you have to own the stock. People who don’t own the stock have no business voting for board members. The board members represent the shareholders–not everyone in the world.

            You get to vote in U.S. presidential elections because you’re a citizen. Non-American citizens have no business voting in our national elections. Is that really confusing to you?

            That isn’t like the human right to speech, religion, a trial by jury, etc. Those rights you get for being born. If you want to participate in the election for President of Mexico, you should probably be required to be a Mexican citizen.

            You may have a human right to vote within an election for the government in your own country–even if it’s in China. But you don’t have a human right to vote in the elections in other countries. Why is that confusing?

            Do you imagine that democracy–even within its proper purview–is about politicians ignoring their own citizens to compete for the votes of foreigners?! Why should you have a voice in the properly democratic affairs of foreign countries?

            You’re off in Never-Never Land, Buddy Ro!

            1. Are we just to trust The Wisdom Of Ken on this?

              I’ll take that as a “yes”.

            2. “You get to vote in U.S. presidential elections because you’re a citizen. Non-American citizens have no business voting in our national elections. Is that really confusing to you?”

              It seems confusing to you.

              Let your cheap human widgets stay in the country long enough, and they’re made citizens. Then they vote for bigger government, infringing on the rights of Americans.

              1. You seem to be confusing the question of what the rules of naturalization should be with some other questions that don’t seem to be directly related to what I wrote at all. I think you’re having a different conversation.

                The idea that the right to vote is conferred with citizenship shouldn’t be controversial at all.

                1. “The idea that the right to vote is conferred with citizenship shouldn’t be controversial at all.”

                  Your intellectual dishonesty here isn’t controversial at all.

                  Yeah, I must have been arguing that voting was conferred by pixie dust, not citizenship.

                  Naturalization leads to citizenship leads to voting.

                  1. “Naturalization leads to citizenship leads to voting.”

                    And if those are the rules set by Congress, then that’s the way it should be.

                    I don’t even understand what you’re complaining about anymore. Are you against democracy now? You think the rules of naturalization shouldn’t be an enumerated power of Congress?

                    ?

                    1. The rules are that invaders should be repelled by the federal government.

                      If we followed the actual *laws*, the cheap human widgets you hire would be removed from the country and you would be imprisoned for your part in your conspiracy to violate US immigration law.

          2. Maybe think of it in terms of freedom of association–which is a human right.

            The American people have come together and decided that Congress should set the rules by which people become citizens–and get the right to vote. That’s just another way of saying that they’ve exercised their freedom of association to only associate with other naturalized citizens who have gone through whatever process Congress thinks is right. There are some restrictions on what Congress can do because certain things fall outside the proper purview of democracy. So, for instance, Congress can’t pass immigration laws that discriminate against immigrants because of their religion–since the First Amendment begins, “Congress shall make no law”. Immigrants retain their right to freedom of religion, of course, and the U.S. government can’t legally and shouldn’t violate their First Amendment rights. That doesn’t mean they’re in the club.

            The Catholic Church has a right to associate with whomever they please. I’m not a Catholic, so if the government came in and said that I got to vote for who gets to be the next Pope, that would violate the freedom of association rights of Catholics everywhere.

            I’ve already given the example of a corporation, where individuals are free to exercise their freedom of association by pooling their resources, forming a business venture, and electing a board of directors to hire and oversee management. They’re free to make their own rules about how directors are selected, but, generally speaking, if you want to vote in the election for directors, you need to own stock in the company.

            This is essentially what the American people have done by giving Congress the authority to set the rules of naturalization. If you want to vote, you need to be a citizen. If you want to be a citizen, you need to follow the rules of naturalization that Congress has set. I, for one, believe that our rules for naturalization should be broadened so as to allow for far more legal immigration than we presently allow, but that’s like a opposing a constitutionally declared war. Just because I don’t like the policy doesn’t mean that Congress shouldn’t be able to set that policy. It just means that I want the policy changed.

            Suffice it to say, the right to vote for representatives may be a human right within your own country, but the American people have a right to freedom of association, too. I may think the rules should be loosened up, but club members have a right to decide how people get into the club. It’s baked into their freedom of association. That isn’t different from a human right. Freedom of association is another human right, and violating it is unacceptable.

            You may have a right to vote in your own country, but your right to have a say in how somebody else’s country is governed doesn’t justify violating the association rights of others.

            1. “You may have a right to vote in your own country, but your right [desire[ to have a say in how somebody else’s country is governed doesn’t justify violating the association rights of others.”

              —-Ken Shultz

              Fixed!

              1. You may have a right to associate with whom you please, but that right does not entail a right for your associates to come to the US.

                1. The question was why non-citizens don’t have a right to vote in our elections, and the answer is about freedom of association. Clubs deciding how people can become members, by itself, doesn’t violate anyone’s rights.

                  If the concepts of voting and being in the country are related, it’s only because in addition to voting, citizenship also entitles you to be in the country.

                  Apart from that unmentioned association, my argument above didn’t address the right to be in the country at all.

                  1. “Clubs deciding how people can become members, by itself, doesn’t violate anyone’s rights.”

                    Clubs deciding who can visit, by itself, doesn’t violate anyone’s rights.

            2. “Maybe think of it in terms of freedom of association–which is a human right.”

              Maybe not. Maybe you should stop with prancing about on your new pet one trick pony – “muh association rights”. You’re embarrassing yourself.

              This notion that your free association rights entitle your associates to invade America is just dumb.

              Take that pony out back and shoot him in the head. Make some burgers out of him.

        2. ChemJeff seems to think anyone and everyone should get free stuff. Regardless of their immigration status. Just trying to see how far that concept extends. I think citizenship is important, immigration should be selective, and generally agree with “If you want rent, food, and healthcare, maybe you should get a job.”

  11. There is no point in arguing with someone who characterizes immigrants as “illiterate third world street shitters”.

    Also some great points by Ken today.

    1. Actually, some ridiculous points by ken today.

      I had to have a passport to visit Canada last month. How dare they restrict my “freedom of association”!

      Ken just wants one rule for us that nobody else has.

      1. Used to be all you needed was a drivers license. That changed after 9/11 and it was mutual.

        I have no problem with some kind of border control if is as easy as your trip to Canada. I also advocate issuing temporary work and residency permits after a quick background check. That should be no harder than getting a drivers license or tourist visa. We have the databases to do that. You get one every time you buy a plane ticket or board a plane.

        If the individual wants to stay they should apply for that. Citizenship can be another matter.

        The solution to illegal immigration is legal immigration. Nobody goes through all that risk if all you had to do was stand in line for an afternoon at a crossing point.

        1. But in order for that to work, we need improved border security and immigration enforcement, because legal foreign workers will never be able to compete with illegal workers. We need an easier way for people to come here for work AND improved suppression of illegal migration. They’re not alternatives to each other; they have to go together.

          1. We need an easier way for people to come here for work AND improved suppression of illegal migration.

            There would be little need for “suppression of illegal migration” if it were drastically easier legally to come here to work.

            1. That’s absurd.

              1. Why do you believe it is absurd?

                  1. Then let me try to be clearer about this.

                    My position is that if legal migration were made far easier, then there would be less illegal immigration, since the main reason why people immigrate illegally is because it is too difficult to do so legally. So if legal immigration were made far easier, there would be less of a need for policing illegal immigration.

                    Do you disagree with this?

                    If you disagree, please explain why you think illegal immigration would INCREASE if legal immigration were made easier.

                    1. Like all truisms, your truism is true. Like all truisms, it contributes nothing to the discussion.

            2. “You could spend less time catching murderers if you declared murder legal.”

              1. If you don’t see the difference in those two things then you haven’t read anything that Ken has posted above, or you choose to blindly ignore it.

                Jeff is absolutely right. Much like restrictive drug policies have led to a dangerous black market, restrictive labor policies have led to a black market for labor with violent coyotes playing the part of gang banger. If you get rid of the need for average people looking for work to cross the border illegally, then maybe, just maybe the border patrol can focus on catching the bad guys that can’t pass a background check who are still trying to get in.

                1. You will still need a strict border to catch those bad guys. Making the system easier doesn’t eliminate the need to have strict borders.

                  1. Sounds good. Imagine how much more effective ICE could be if there weren’t 100,000 border crossings a month, 99+% of which are just people wanting to live and work here.

                    I’d be willing to trade a border wall for unlimited work visas which can be obtained through nothing more than a background check.

                    1. Proof of employment should be required also. Letting an “unlimited” number of migrants in just to LOOK for work would effectively be the same thing as open borders. Anyone can CLAIM to be here to work, and that they’ll leave if they can’t find it.

                    2. “You can have a wall if you set no limits on Invasion USA.”

                      The point of the wall is to limit Invasion USA.

                    3. @Vernon

                      It’s even easier than that. We don’t need more government paper work; we need less. Let them in and don’t afford them any benefits like welfare or food stamps. One way to ensure work is to ensure that people have to be self-sufficient.

                      And then maybe we can start on requiring that of citizens too.

                    4. There is not a chance in Hell of that happening.

                2. I have read and refuted what Ken has posted.

                  1. Actually, you revealed yourself to be the authoritarian I always knew you were. You actually said voting for the “wrong” party is a violation of your rights. Let’s hear it for the one-party state, everyone!

                    1. Materially supporting the violation of my rights is a violation of my rights.

                      Your inability to see the causal connection between voting and government policy is yet another instance of your inability to understand causality and government.

              2. “Illegally crossing the border is a crime on the same level as homicide”

                1. It’s a crime.

                  1. Yes, but our criminal justice system doesn’t punish all crimes in the same way, nor should it. That’s why we treat illegal immigration less seriously than say, knifing somebody’s jugular. It’s also why your analogy is utterly retarded.

                2. One has a victim; one does not. See how easy that is?

                  1. The concept that illegal immigration doesn’t have a victim is dubious at best. Under current immigration laws (not arguing for or against here) illegal immigrants are factored into immigration quotas. Therefore the more illegals the less legal immigrants allowed in. Thus you could say those using the legal means are victims of illegal immigration. Illegal immigration also appears to have some downward impact on the demand and pay of lower skilled jobs. Much like minimum wage actually hurts those with minimal skills, illegal immigration also appears to hurt those with minimal skills. Thus you have yet another victim. Illegal immigrants also appear to have detrimental impacts on public schools. The more illegal children, the less funding and more time and effort needed to educate their children, taking away from American citizens in the same school. The list can continue but I think the point is made. Illegal immigration does create victims. They just tend to be less obvious then victims of violent crime.

                  2. Only if you ignore property rights. More fundamental than right of association or movement.

      2. In any case I don’t understand your point. Canada does not have our constitution nor our legal system. As a libertarian I think having freedom of assembly is great and would like to see it everywhere even if it applied imperfectly here.

    2. There is no point in arguing with someone who characterizes immigrants as “illiterate third world street shitters”.

      I’m an immigrant, and I don’t take offense.

      You, of course, are a pampered American and concern troll, so you take offense at everything!

    3. He is t talking about immigrants. He’s talking about illegals. Quit conflating the two. They are not the same.

      1. “Illegals” is short for “illegal immigrants”. Seriously, you’re not clever enough for this, go back to your other schtick.

  12. “So why not open up our borders… and allow hoof-and-mouth disease and avian flu to come and go as they please? And why not ban nuclear electricity and decimate bald eagles with subsidized windmills? Why not look at how those policies have helped the Democrats? Our job is to gain enough spoiler votes to cause the looter kleptocracy to disgorge Populist communism and adopt our policies instead. We cannot accomplish that by following anarchist lemmings over the cliff.

  13. Why not move the chicken plucking plants south of the border. The Mexican minimum wage is $4.79……..A DAY. Win win for everyone.

    1. I did some looking around when this came up and found some industry publications. Meat and poultry processing has a chronic worker shortage even with the immigrants. That is one solution they are talking about, moving all or part of the process at least the more labor intensive parts.

      Like anything else the industry will find a way. Not all of those jobs go to immigrants. If they can’t find labor here they will somewhere else and we will lose jobs and industry.

      1. If they can’t find labor here they will somewhere else and we will lose jobs and industry.

        Fear not! All Trump needs to do is “hereby decree” that businesses stay in America, and problem solved!

      2. That is one solution they are talking about, moving all or part of the process at least the more labor intensive parts.

        Moving low wage jobs like that to Mexico is good for Mexico and good for the US.

        1. Actually it would only work if we change our current humane slaughter and transportation laws. And if we can ship animals cheaply. The answer is to slaughter and clean them here and ship them frozen or refrigeratorated. But the final processing is easy. It’s the slaughter, evisceration, etc that is difficult. This would require large numbers of live animals to be shipped, quite often great distances, for processing. Most of the poultry and pork is produced east of the Mississippi. A lot of beef is grown and finished throughout the west. Shipping live cattle from Montana to Mexico involves huge cost. On average, you can fit 44 head of finished steers on a livestock hauler. Average freight cost is around $0.86 miles for a full trailer. The current law also requires that if the livestock will be transported for greater than 24 hours they have to be let out and allowed to eat and drink. Additionally, the longer livestock are hauled, the more stress they undergo. Stress increases illness (i.e. shipping fever) and decreases meat quality. Hauling eats into the low profit margins that feeders make. This would move most of the feeders into areas adjacent to the border. This would mean many ranchers will either lose their markets or see their already tight profits decrease even further. Less ranchers in Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, the Dakotas, Nebraska etc will decrease beef supply, driving up beef prices. Pork and poultry would have similar problems. Lack of local packing houses is already a major constraint on a lot of ranchers and farmers.

          1. 39 million cattle were slaughtered last year. At 44 head per truck that would require Over 886,344 truckloads to ship beef to Mexico.

            1. Thanks for all your good points!

              “At 44 head per truck that would require Over 886,344 truckloads to ship beef to Mexico.” etc …

          2. Actually it would only work if we change our current humane slaughter and transportation laws.

            No, we wouldn’t. Large cattle ranches in the US are themselves a consequence of government market distortions; in a free market, they would move to low wage countries along with the processing.

            Down the line, US businesses would likely figure out how to perform farming and ranching with little low skilled labor either using robotic technologies or using “lab-grown” techniques.

            1. Large ranches are not a function of the Government. They are a function of what it takes to be profitable. I am an animal science professor and a rancher myself. You are arguing with me about the exact thing I am an expert on. 90% of ranches in the US have less than 250 head of cattle. But in most of the west you need 1000 or more acres to support this many cattle. The land isn’t good for much else. Cattle grazing actually is beneficial for the land and wildlife. Losing cattle would drastically reduce the quality of the plains and intermountain west, while destroying whole communities. Additionally, cattle ranches don’t require a lot of help. My friend runs 100 head with him and his wife on 2000 acres. Come branding time we all assist each other.
              What I was talking about are transportation. The US produces more beef on less land then any country in the world. We have the most efficient livestock operations in the world. Off shoring this would not improve quality and would decrease efficiency. Take Brazil for instance, the world’s largest exporter of beef. To support their beef industry the routinely clear cut and burn huge swaths of forests (though the rate has decreased in recent years). Their annual burning often gets out of control and causes huge wildfires. Additionally, they tend to use cattle with high Bos Indicus influence. Bos Indicus cattle have a enzyme that inhibits calpastatin which breaks down some of the muscle linkages, making meat more tender. As a result meat from their cattle have significantly higher shear force (e.g. the force taken to chew) than American beef which tends to be mostly Bos Taurus. Bos Indicus however are better suited for hot, tropical environments. So to offshore our beef industry we would have to accept decreased cattle efficiency and decreased meat quality. As for lab grown meat, it is still rather expensive and the reviews of it have been mixed at best (even in blind taste test).
              The US farmer and rancher are the best in the world. We feed not only the US but a good portion of other countries with only 1% directly involved and 5% of the population indirectly involved. Moving processing out of country will never be as easy as moving computer chip manufacturing out of the country.

              1. ” Cattle grazing actually is beneficial for the land and wildlife. ”

                The pre civilizational state of much of America was grazing by herds of ruminants and horses. Cattle ranching transforms some of that land back to that pre civilizational state.

            2. Large cattle ranches have always been around. And define large. Actually, large cattle ranches would adjust easier than the 90% of ranchers who are not large (defined as >than 250 head). And only so much can be accomplished with mechanization. Hell most ranchers already utilize four wheelers, UTVs, tractors etc. We could possibly increase concentrated feeding (currently most ranches are grass pasture systems with steer calves going to feedlots at around 6 months to a year of age for finishing). But as I said earlier that would have a detrimental impact on a lot of land that is currently being grazed and protected from other development. Personally, I like the fact that on my small ranch I routinely see deer, antelope, pheasant, sharp failed grouse, fox, coyotes, (the latter two are okay when they aren’t among my lambs, kids and calves), badger, prairie song birds, doves, ducks, geese etc. I see deer fawning in the same area my heifers calve in. I have ducks and geese nesting in the livestock ponds. I have pheasant and sharp tail grouse nesting in my shelter belts. I have fox kitting in the north pasture. It is a fairly well balanced eco system. It is worth preserving. And I am doing it through my own investment. Yes I take FSA loans but I pay those back with interest (this the government actually makes money on me). My kids raise show sheep for 4-H and FFA (they breed and sell them). Their profits go into the education savings accounts, helping them pay for college when they go. They also do chores in the morning and evening, keeping them physically fit and exposure to livestock helps improve the immune system, thus they are healthier. Chores and caring for out livestock gives my wife and I needed stress relief from our in town jobs , while also increasing our excercise load (my town job has me sitting at a desk most of the day). I’ve lost 10 pounds already since starting my ranch. Fencing, mucking out barns, haying etc seems like hard work but it actually has proven cathartic. We also are able to raise a lot of our own food and are going to increase the amount we raise next summer. This will save us money on our grocery bills. Chickens and pigs help decrease our food waste and garbage, as well.

              1. Large cattle ranches I should clarify have always been part of the European settled American west.

              2. Hey, thanks for the long writings, that was interesting! Beef… It’s what’s for dinner! AMERICAN beef!

                1. Beef and animal science in general are my passion.

              3. Very informative SMedic

      3. Or they will increase mechanization.

        1. Thanks for the informative writings!

          Some stupid questions for you in case you see this and have some time:

          I have seen “Brangus” hybrid Euro-Indian cattle, and was interested to see you mention that Euro beef is easier to eat than Indo-beef. How about the hybrids? And HOW does one use selective breeding to pick easy-to-chew meat? One can’t take a “chew sample” from a live animal, ethically, right? “Wing it” on the cross-breeds, take time, and cross your fingers? Or is it, store sperm and-or eggs and go from there, after the animal(s) have been thoughtfully chewed on? GMO? Anything else? Any progress on the genetics of easy-to-chew? How badly are beef farmers scared of the public being scared of GMO?

          Speaking of cows and GMO, did you see https://newfoodeconomy.org/fda-gene-edited-cattle-antibiotic-resistant-crispr-dna/
          FDA finds a surprise in gene-edited cattle: antibiotic-resistant, non-bovine DNA

          (Full disclosure; I’m personally not much afraid of GMO boogeymen).

          Comments?

          1. To answer your first question, it is difficult to predict which genes will be passed on, and most traits are multi-allele so predicting is extremely problematic. However, generally speaking they are between the two. Generally, most southern farmers who introduce Bos Indicus into a Bos Taurus breed, prefer to stay under 25% Bos Indicus influence. To make it even more complicated, the Bos Taurus can be divided into English breeds (Hereford and Angus) which tend to marble better and are tenderer and more feed effecient but smaller, and Continental (Charolais, Simmental, Piedmont, Belgian Blue etc) which tend to be bigger framed and put in more muscle but tend to have less marbling, require more feed for the same gain, and take longer to finish as a result. They, however, often have better maternal traits.
            As for incorporating DNA, the did this by tagging certain markers and then scanning for them. This was basically a bogus study. Your body, all bodies, recycle strands of DNA, so of course they would find those markers. Since there are only four nucleotides that make up all eukaryotic DNA (prokaryotic have very similar but one nucleotide is slightly different) it would be surprising if they didn’t find strands of tagged DNA. Say I tag every Thymine, which is how the usually do this, and I find tagged Thymine in incorporated DNA, this doesn’t mean whole alleles were incorporated, just the tagged nucleotide.

            1. I should have read the story first. This is a different case then the first time I saw it mentioned about GMO DNA, which is the one I referred to. In that study a group was trying to say GMO feed altered the Genome. The case you mentioned is about modifying existing genomes of livestock. In this case it appears they transferred the whole plasmid instead of a portion. I would note that viruses such as bacteriophages inject foreign DNA into our cells all the time, and it is often taken up. Most the time the cell dies. Sometimes it creates an advantage (this is beneficial from evolutionary standpoint) other times it can be negative and cause cancers etc. Mostly they have little to no impact. In this case the whole plasmid, as opposed to the desired strand appears to have no impact. I am not a geneticist (nutrition is my expertise and I have a decent background in animal health, reproduction management and range management). Mainly it sounds like using CRISPR in livestock may take a bit longer to understand than we hoped. Or we need a slightly better means of transferring the desired trait.

  14. So why not open up our borders and allow anyone who wants to work in this country to do so?

    That would be great if we still lived in a limited government liberal nation, but we don’t.

    We actually live in a social welfare state with a massive government debt problem. The lower 4/5th income quintiles are a net drain on government resources, and the more people you add to that group, the faster the US goes downhill.

    1. “We actually live in a social welfare state…”

      Sad to say, yes we do! Punishing hard-working people who would just like to butcher a few chickens for us to eat, for some fairly meager pay… I just do NOT see how punishing these people is going to help tear down the welfare state!

      1. Border and immigration enforcement helps in this way: if illegal migrants were less available as workers, businesses that for practical reasons cannot flee to lower-wage countries would be forced to offer better pay and working conditions to citizens and legal foreign workers. That would reduce the dependence of the workers on government assistance.

        1. Replacing Government Almighty charity-at-gunpoint with the older system of private charity would get us there faster and better! What we have now is an endless iterative loop of Government Almighty giving itself more powers to fix the last mess that they created!

          The collective hive mandated WAY too many licenses, before we’re allowed to earn an honest living… Too many min wages and other mandates. Put too many of us into poverty. To “help” with this poverty problem that The Collective Hive created, The Collective Hive gave us welfare. Welfare then attracts too many illegal sub-humans, sometimes, so to fix THAT problem, The Collective Hive now wants e-verify and giant border walls and giant border armies… And now also property confiscations for wall-building… So I suppose The Collective Hive will next fire up the military draft to fix THAT problem! (Lack of a large enough wall-and-army forces).

          When will we stop the perpetual cycle of Government Almighty always getting bigger, to fix the LAST batch of problems created by excessive Government Almighty?

          1. You keep referring to them as sub-humans, though no one else is using that phrase. It is rather telling of your views on them.

        2. Shorter and sweeter:

          To tear down the welfare state… We have to tear down the welfare state! Punishing people for working, isn’t helping!

          1. Pleasant dreams.

  15. One thing is for certain: Tony is frequenting Big Meat wherever he can get it.

  16. While nearly half of those arrested were found to be U.S. citizens or people working legally in the country, poultry processing involves backbreaking, monotonous, and often dangerous work that U.S. citizens generally are often unwilling to perform.

    The first half of the statement seems to refute the second half.

    1. Don’t confuse Reason writers with logic; they are still smarting from their loss of Koch.

      1. “Logic is a social construct of the white supremacist cisheteropatriarchy used to oppress marginalized peoples.”

    2. How about worrying a little bit less about whether or not Reason’s writings are “logical” in your book, and worrying a wee tad more about what the FACTS show is happening to our nation?

      “While nearly half of those arrested were found to be U.S. citizens or people working legally in the country…”

      WHY were they arrested if they were following the law? Does that not bother you? If even the law-abiding ones get hassled all day, WHO do you think will be left to eagerly take up chicken-butchering jobs? Are you ready to march yet further down the road to a “papers please” police state, that is too ham-handed to even apply the laws in a sensible fashion? Are you ready to be arrested for “aiding and abetting an illegal sub-human” every time you open a door or push an elevator button w/o asking for “papers please”, of the person you are helping? Are you ready to be exported to a nation you’ve never lived in, “accidentally”, by your favorite brownshirts, because you forgot to carry your ID papers?

      1. WHY were they arrested if they were following the law? Does that not bother you? If even the law-abiding ones get hassled all day, WHO do you think will be left to eagerly take up chicken-butchering jobs?

        They probably weren’t “arrested” but “detained” until their legal status could be determined.

        Yes, law abiding citizens can be detained by police for the verification of identity, legal status, etc. That’s the only way any system of policing or private security can work. Even mall security can detain you legally.

        1. Wrong. You can’t be detained without probable cause that you committed a crime. Sure the legal standard is less than a conviction, but it can’t be that anybody can be detained at any time for any reason. That’s what wrongful arrest suits are all about.

          Because you are here and don’t appear to be American is not probable cause.

    3. The first half of the statement seems to refute the second half.

      It doesn’t refute it; it just reveals the unconscious racism of the “open borders” crowd. They don’t think of Hispanics as actual Americans, but they don’t realize that. That’s why the writer was oblivious to the glaring contradiction—when he wrote “U.S. citizens” the first time, he was thinking of brown people; when he used the term the second time, he was thinking of white people.

      1. Yeah that’s it. It’s probably racism. /s

        U.S. citizens or people working legally in the country, poultry processing involves backbreaking, monotonous, and often dangerous work that U.S. citizens generally are often unwilling to perform

        US citizens OR people working legally in the country does not equal US citizens generally. The first part includes other people working legally here (non-citizens). And the word generally means an average US citizen.

        Do you really think that the average American wants to work in meat processing? If you could easily replace these workers with citizens then the employers almost certainly would because they bring less risk.

  17. I have a dream…

    I’ve got this dream, in which HUGE numbers of people learn the central lesson of Dumbo the baby ephelump with the giant ears… Dumbo thinks he can fly, but ONLY when he’s tightly clutching his “magic feather”! But then one day, in a moment of crisis, he learns that it’s just a mental crutch! He CAN fly without the feather!

    So today, we think we can welcome the new immigrant neighbors next door, bring them a welcome-to-the-neighborhood cake, pie, or bottle of booze… And encourage our kids to make friends with their kids… Help them learn English, and the ways of America… But ONLY if they’ve got their “magic papers”!

    Someday, we’ll learn that we CAN welcome the stranger, with or without their magic papers… We can judge them (to the extent that we must judge) by the content of their characters, instead. We can be kind to our neighbors, even while we insist to Government Almighty, that we do NOT need the “help” of Government Almighty, in forcing our kindness at gunpoint! Nor do we need the “help” of Government Almighty, in giving us permission, concerning who we can be kind to, and who we may NOT be kind to! Nor who we can trade with either!

    1. And we enjoy that luxury because our government’s efforts at border security and immigration control keep the numbers of newcomers small enough to be manageable and not overwhelm our capacity for generosity.

    2. “Let’s trade in our belief in a magic feather for a belief in magic dirt.”

      Import Not Americans, Become Not America.

      It’s not rocket science.

      1. Everyone who isn’t “Native American” (Aboriginal American)-blooded, PLEASE “go back where you came from”!

        buybuydandavis and other rocket scientists KNOW that the USA would be a MUCH better place without you!

        1. Native Americans might indeed want that.

          But wars with British colonies and US governments determined otherwise.

          It’s amusing how the open borders crowd think the Native American experience somehow provides a rationale for open borders.

          I think the Native Americans could have used a big, beautiful wall. But they didn’t have one. And so they lost their land and their way of life.

          That should be a lesson to Americans today, but unless you’re a moron, it’s not a lesson *in favor* of open borders.

          1. You REALLY think Native Americans today are WORSE off for the arrival of Europeans? Look at lifespans alone… And, you think we’d be better off for the lack of modern metallurgy, wheels, air conditioning, blah-blah-blah, all derived from Euro-tech? Let’s get rid of it all, go back to Native-American tribal ways then!

            We do NOT know WHAT we are forgoing, in the way of future advancements, by slamming down the gates on potential future immigrants!

            1. I didn’t say what I thought might be good for Native Americans, I said what they might want.

              “We don’t *know* what we might be foregoing.”

              Radical skepticism cuts toward unknown disasters *more* easily than unknown utopias.

              Grown ups make the best estimates they can and proceed accordingly.

      2. In buybuy’s mind,
        America >>> The Individual

        1. In racebaiterjeff’s mind, he’s always winning arguments with arguments he imagines are in your head.

          1. “We do NOT know WHAT we are forgoing, in the way of future advancements, by slamming down the gates on potential future immigrants!”

            Chemjeff and I can say stuff like this, and buybuydandavis will think that we’re totally insane… Because the invading hordes of brown people from shithole nations couldn’t EVER have ANYTHING of value to us good Americans!!!

            Then buybuydandavis and buddies will turn around, and accuse US of being the racists!!!

          2. Except that it’s not imaginary.
            You are rather consistent in subjugating the rights of the individual to the supposed needs of the collective. For example, your contention with Ken that a person has free association rights, just not with ‘unapproved’ foreigners in the US. You’ll recognize my free association rights, but only conditionally, if the exercise of the rights doesn’t displease the collective. You’ll happily grant the collective veto power over my rights, and yours as well.

            You don’t even dispute this, you just instead try to change the subject by mocking me.

            What is the name for a person who places the collective ahead of the individual? Hmm, it’s right on the tip of my tongue…

            1. And you’re consistent in your attempt to destroy America.

              What is the name for a person who wishes to destroy existing freedoms and enslave Americans to an ever expanding state?
              Hmm, it’s right on the tip of my tongue…

              There it is.

              Slaver!

              1. “…enslave Americans to an ever expanding state?”

                Well, the anti-illegal-immigration movement is just the latest part of a chain of the “ever expanding state”!!!

                The collective hive mandated WAY too many licenses, before we’re allowed to earn an honest living… Too many min wages and other mandates. Put too many of us into poverty. To “help” with this poverty problem that The Collective Hive created, The Collective Hive gave us welfare. Welfare then attracts too many illegal sub-humans, sometimes, so to fix THAT problem, The Collective Hive now wants e-verify and giant border walls and giant border armies… And now also property confiscations for wall-building… So I suppose The Collective Hive will next fire up the military draft to fix THAT problem! (Lack of a large enough wall-and-army forces).

                When will we stop the perpetual cycle of Government Almighty always getting bigger, to fix the LAST batch of problems created by excessive Government Almighty?

                In YOUR view, WHO are the more-open-borders crowd advocating we should be enslaved to? The illegals? That’s just absurd! Because if you look behind the “sturm unt drang” (pissing and moaning, Kabuki theater, showcase raids), the feds secretly LIKE enslaving the illegals, so as to gather more Social Security funds from them, which they will NEVER benefit from! So the huge fraction of them who pay into SS, yet never benefit, are OUR (partial) slaves, propping up SS!!! Which the feds like just fine, thank you very much!

                See “The Truth About Undocumented Immigrants and Taxes” (in quotes) in your Google search window will take you straight there, hit number one… AKA http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/09/undocumented-immigrants-and-taxes/499604/ For details about us natives mooching off of the taxes of the illegal sub-humans…

    3. SQRLSY

      I like that post. +11

      I would just add that there are many churches and other organizations that do just that. They provide transportation, teaching, finding housing and jobs, for immigrants who come here. They could all use donations for those so inclined. There is a lot we could do as you pointed out just by simple human kindness.

Please to post comments